State of Minnesota v. Luke Vincent Bruns

• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota
• Decided: August 26, 2024
• Docket: a240492
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A24-0492

State of Minnesota, Respondent,

vs.

Luke Vincent Bruns, Appellant.

Filed August 26, 2024 Affirmed Florey, Judge *

Crow Wing County District Court File No. 18-CR-23-346

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney, Quinn T. Hoffman, Assistant County Attorney, Brainerd, Minnesota (for respondent)

Adam Justinger, SW&L Attorneys, Fargo, North Dakota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Wheelock, Judge; and Florey,

Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to

Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

FLOREY, Judge

In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for fourth-degree driving while

impaired (DWI), appellant Luke Vincent Bruns argues that the district court erred in

denying his motion to suppress the evidence against him because police lacked reasonable

suspicion to stop his tracked snow machine for failing to stop at stop signs and for not

having a visible taillight. Because the stop was supported by reasonable, articulable

suspicion, we affirm.

FACTS

On January 20, 2023, an officer with the Crosby Police Department observed a

vehicle that did not appear to have functioning brake lights and failed to stop at stop signs.

As the officer approached, he realized that the “big, white, boxy-looking vehicle . . . had

two tracks, like snowmobile tracks, and had a single hatch door in the rear, and had two

illuminated lights, but they weren’t indicating any braking.” The officer observed the

vehicle travel through two stop signs, believing the vehicle slowed but did not stop at either

sign, before initiating a traffic stop.

Respondent State of Minnesota charged Bruns with fourth-degree DWI in violation

of Minn. Stat. 169A.27, subd. 1 (2022). Bruns moved to suppress the evidence against

him, claiming that, because Minnesota law does not require the type of vehicle that he was

driving to have brake lights, the officer’s suspicion of criminal activity was based upon a

mistake of law. The state, relying on the officer’s belief that Bruns failed to stop at the

stop signs, argued that the stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion.

2 Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Bruns’s motion,

determining that the lack of visible brake lights provided the officer with “reasonable

suspicion that the vehicle had either not properly stopped, or it did not have working brake

lights.” After a trial on stipulated evidence, the district court found Bruns guilty of fourth-

degree DWI.

Bruns appeals.

DECISION

Bruns argues that the district court erred by not suppressing the evidence from the

traffic stop, claiming that the traffic stop was based upon the officer’s mistake of law and

was therefore unsupported by reasonable, articulable suspicion.

Appellate courts, when reviewing a district court’s decision on a pretrial motion to

suppress evidence, review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and review its

legal determinations de novo. State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008). The

interpretation of a statute is reviewed de novo. State v. Defatte, 928 N.W.2d 338, 340

(Minn. 2019).

The United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the

government. U.S. Const. amend. IV. For a limited investigatory stop to be reasonable, a

police officer “must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together

with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Terry v. Ohio,

392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968). The standard for reasonable suspicion is not high, and the standard

is met when a police officer “can articulate specific facts which, taken together with

3 rational inferences from those facts, objectively support the officer’s suspicion.”

State v. Lugo, 887 N.W.2d 476, 486 (Minn. 2016).

At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that he suspected Bruns had failed

to comply with traffic signs or had an equipment violation is because the officer did not

see brake lights illuminate when Bruns passed through the stop signs.

Minnesota law requires the driver of a vehicle to stop at stop signs.

Minn. Stat. §§ 169.20, subd. 3(b), .30(b) (2022). The officer did not see brake lights

illuminate as the vehicle passed through two stop signs, which led to the officer to

reasonably believe that the vehicle had failed to stop at the stop signs.

Still, Bruns claims that the officer mistakenly suspected criminal activity because

the vehicle that he was operating qualifies as a snowmobile and is, therefore, not required

to have brake lights. See Minn. Stat. §§ 84.81, subd. 3 (defining snowmobile), .87,

subd. 1(f) (excepting snowmobiles from the equipment requirements of chapters 169 and

169A) (2022). Because the statute requires only that snowmobiles have working brakes,

not brake lights, Minn. Stat. § 84.87, subd. 1(d) (2022), Bruns claims that the lack of visible

brake lights cannot form the basis for the traffic stop. Bruns cites cases in which the

supreme court has held that the stop was illegal because it was based on a mistake of law,

but, in each of those cases, the stop was based on conduct that was not illegal under the

court’s interpretation of the relevant statute. See State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818, 820

(Minn. 2004) (“Minnesota Statutes § 169.18, subd. 11 (2002), which requires a motorist to

move ‘a lane away’ from an emergency vehicle on the side of the road does not require a

motorist to provide a lane between the passing vehicle and the emergency vehicle.”);

4 State v. George, 557 N.W.2d 575, 576 (Minn. 1997) (“A law enforcement officer’s belief

a motorcycle headlight configuration to be illegal is not an objective legal basis for a traffic

stop where the headlight configuration clearly conformed to Minnesota law.”).

Here, in contrast, the officer did not see brake lights illuminate as Bruns passed

through two intersections, which caused the officer to reasonably infer that Bruns had

failed to stop at the stop signs in violation of Minnesota law. Accordingly, even if the

officer was mistaken in believing that Bruns’s vehicle was required to have operable brake

lights, the officer nevertheless had reasonable articulable suspicion of a traffic violation to

justify the stop.

Affirmed.